(vii.a) Śilparatna (Introduction)

This last representative manual may be regarded as the consummation of the architectural and sculptural traditions of Drāviḍa-deśa with the exuberance of a very rich heritage as evolved and developed in that part of our great country both in the domain of the scientific exposition and artistic creations. I have elsewhere remarked that all these three texts—Mānasāra, Mayamata and Śilparatna epitomise one and same tradition. Differences lie with the characteristics of the time and evolutions of the art.

This work is more exhaustive and elaborate than Mayamata though both follow one and the same tradition. I he Śilparatna agrees more with the Mayamata than with the Mānasāra. Dr. Acharya’s contention that the most of the chapters of this text are a literal abridgment of the Mānasāra may be only partially true. The Śilparatna does not refer to the Manasāra and Doctor Acharya is angry with it author, I may however submit to the learned Doctor that the author of this text has taken material from the Mayamata and he does recognize his indebtedness to this manual by making the second salutation to Muni Maya (The first being made to Viśvakarmā). He also remembers a good many other Acharyas like Mātaṅga, Bhṛgu, Kāśyapa, and Agastya, etc.

It may be remarked that though Śilparatna owes a good deal of indebtedness to Mayamata, its chief source, however, lies in the fountain head of the Āgamas which like Purāṇas in the North, were harbingers of devotional upsurge in the South. They gave rise to devotional places, the temples and devotional objects, the images of gods and goddesses, the chief subject-matter of the Śilpa-texts in India.

This is evident from the prologue of the author of Śilparatna, Śrīkumāra:

brāla kṣātraṃ ca tejo'pyahamahamikayā varṇite yatra vīre
tasya śrīdevanārāyaṇadharaṇipaterājayājñākaro'ham |
mando'pyatyantamohādativipulatarebhyo'tha pūrvāgamebhyaḥ
saṃkṣita śilparamaṃ pralikhitumadhunā prakrame tatkrameṇa ||

This Śrīkumāra was a Kerala Brahmin and it seems that he lived at the court of Devanārāyaṇa (cf. the reference in the above prologue), who is said to have ruled over a territory with a capital at Ambalappuzha now within the state of Travancore. He was a great patron of learning and entertained in his court the famous Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa, a great poet and Vaiyākaraṇa and author of Nārāyaṇīya and many other works, and is known to have flourished in tḥe latter part of the 16th century A.D. It is therefore certain, as surmized by the learned editor of Śilparatna, T. Ganapati Shastri that tḥe author of the Śilparatna, a protigee of his, also lived in the same period.

Sri K. Sambasiva Sastri, the editor of the second part of this text, thinks that the determination of the date of Srikumāra is in need of further evidences in the light of the fact that the word, ‘Devanārāyaṇa’ in the above quoted verse is known to be a title of the rulers of Ambalappuzha, and the reference of the word in “set???kānana [setūrdhvakānana?]” the salutory to Saḍānana [Ṣaḍānana?], indicating the seat of Srikumara’s family deity or Iṣṭadevatā which seems to be the Sanskritization of the Malayala Deśa Chiramelkkatu which Deśa is now found in Talapalli Taluk in eochin, state. Any way Sri Kamara is a later medieval author on the Śilpa and his work shows fullest of acquaintances with the later developments of Indian architecture especially the different traditions of temple building art. Dr. Bhattacharya’s observations also support this—vide ‘A study on Vāstuvidyā’ chapts. XIII-XVI.